Package maintainers -- want test results by mail?

[Matt McCutchen]

On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 14:48 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Well, then lets begin:
> 
> # rpmlint yum
> yum.noarch: W: self-obsoletion yum-allow-downgrade < 1.1.20-0 obsoletes 
> yum-allow-downgrade
[...]
> yum.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/yum.bash
> yum.noarch: E: non-executable-script 
> /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/yum/repos.py 0644L /usr/bin/python
[...]
> Or ...
> # rpmlint binutils
> binutils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US addr -> add, 
> adder, adds
> binutils.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit 
> /usr/lib64/libbfd-2.20.51.0.2-20.fc13.so exit at GLIBC_2.2.5
> binutils.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit 
> /usr/lib64/libbfd-2.20.51.0.2-20.fc13.so _exit at GLIBC_2.2.5
> binutils.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency 
> /usr/lib64/libopcodes-2.20.51.0.2-20.fc13.so /lib64/libz.so.1
> binutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ld.bfd
> binutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ld.gold
> binutils.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rm
> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.

Which of those messages do you consider noise and why?  Most of them
look valid to me, though they are indeed nits.

-- 
Matt